The clarion. [volume] (Jackson, Miss.) 1883-1888, 1887-03-30
V. A. ANDERSON. \
A. Y. Lock.

V. A. ANDERSON,
A. Y. Lock.
| Appeal from the Circuit Court of Lowudes
county. Hon. w. NJ. Rogers, Judge
Barry & Beckett, for the appellant.
| VIM. Baldwin and G.. A. Egans, for the
appellee.
A. \. Lock is a resident of supervisory
district, No. 5. Lowndes county. Mrs. V.
A. Anderson is a resident of Clay county.
near the Lowndes county line. Mrs An
| derson's cattle were found trespassing
| upon the cultivated fields of Locke, which
| fields were without fences, and he took
| them up, put them in his pasture and i'm
mediately notified Mrs. Anderson that she
could get them by paying the charges fixed
by an act of 1882, acts of 1882, p. 232, en-
| titled An act to prevent stock running at
| large ia certain supervisors districts OF
Lowndes county, this State" Mrs Ander-
son not having appeared, Lock delivered
them up to one Fort, his father-in-law. and
the nearest justice of the peace, and the
cattle were sold by Fort. 1t is admitted
that the act above referred TO was through
out both in the seizure and disposition OF
the cattle, complied with. Mrs. Anderson
first brought action OF repleVin against
Lock for the cattle, but afterwards changed
il into an acton OF assumpsit Tor their
value and damages. The cause having
been submitted to the court by agreement.
it was decided in favor of the defendant.
Lock, and The plaintiff appealed.
ARNOLD, J., delivered the opinion of the
Court.
The common law doctrine which re-
quires the owner of stock to keep them off
the land of others-to fence in his own
rather than TO fence out the stock of 9th
ers-and makes him liable for trespasses
committed by them and precludes him from
recovering damages for any injury they
may sustain by going on the land OF Others
does not prevail in this State, But the
subject is within the power and control of
the Legislature, and no legal right is VIC.
lated, and there is no cause to complain
when one is required By law TO Keen his
stock off the land OF others.
Il is admitted that in the seizure and
disposition of the stock In controversy The
act entitled IAN act to prevent stock rnn-
ming at large in certain supervisors dis
tricts OF Lowndes county in this State ;,
approved February 10, 1882. was in all
things complied with. This admission
constitutes complete bar to appellants
claim. The purpose declared by that act
was to prevent stock running at large, aud
10 render the cultivation of the soil and
crops, III the districts named. secure with
out fences, from depredations by stock
This purpose would be defeated by limit
IEg the operation of the act to stock whose
owners resided in the territory specified in
the act. 1t is true, that only such owners
are expressly required by the act to enclose.
contine or herd their stock, but the second
section OF the act provides that any animal
or animcLs, found loose or trespassipg upon
the fields or cultivated lands of any nerson
within The specified territory must be
supplied by intendmentl, other than the
owner Of such animal or animals. NAV be
taken up, confined, ETC., and that notice
shall be given without delay to the owner.
etc.
BY disregarding the spirit and intent Of
the act, the animal or animals designated
IN the second section of the act might be
appropriately restricted to such animals AZ
are expressly required by the first section.
to be enclosed, confined or herded, but
when the provisions OF statute are doubt
iul, out the design and object clear. the
latter should, upon familiar principles.
guide IN Its construction.
There is no uawarranted exercise ef
power BY the Legislature, manifested in
the act. The justice Of the peace who adj
yertised and sold the stock, did not act iu
dlclally In the premises, and his proceed-
lnes are not vitiated by the fact that ap-
peiie was bis son-in-law. Affirmed.